Talk:USS Nautilus
Registry I'm curious: Is her registry derived from the Encyclopedia or some sort of background information? Or was it in fact visible on the screen? In the picture shown in the article the registry is barely - not to say impossibly - legible. – Ambassador 17:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC) Name Hey, why did you put the "name" paragraph back into the background section? I think there is enough information about it to justify an extra paragraph! And I really don't see a reason to find any of the information "speculative"! –Ambassador 17:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC) : There is no reason to create a separate section for the name when it was never explained in canon, meaning it is more speculation than fact. Nevertheless, it is all background information, so there is no reason to create a second subsection for it outside of that. --Alan 17:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC) Giving the name its own paragraph does not change anything about its background status, especially if you take into account that I did not change a single word, but added only one line. However, it is obvious where the ship's name derives from. Therefore any attempt to discount it as speculation is simply preposterous... Anyway, what about the derivation? Don't you at least think that the new line about the Greek origin of the word is of interest and so has the right to exist? I do. You can keep the whole name thing in the background section, but the derivation will be found there as well. – Ambassador 17:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC) ::It's not at all obvious. How do we know that it's not named after the shell? :) -- Sulfur 17:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC) That's exactly why I did not change the "most likely". We do not know for sure. However, even the shell's name has its roots in ναυτίλος, so I fiercely refuse having it not somewhere in there. – Ambassador 17:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC) : And if you just add the "ναυτίλος" comment (which really seems to go beyond necessary, to me, as we do not typically explain word origins in our articles unless it was discussed in an episode for some reason) you still would have what we already had, which was already more than acceptable. --Alan 17:46, 28 May 2007 (UTC) Really? Fine, so let's discard the origins of names like Farragut, Grissom or ShirKahr as well! "Nautilus" does have a meaning. ShirKahr, for example, does not. It's simply a reference to a fictional city. Listing the background of it, however, seems to go without saying. Are such explanations beyond necessity and interest as well? – Ambassador 17:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC) :: The original intent was to only list such name origins as were listed in the encyclopedia and the various companions. The real problem I have is that we say "most likely". We have no clue where the writers got the name. For all we know, the "Farragut" was named after one of his pals, who happens to share the name with the old Civil War dude. At most we should say something along the lines of "The ship may have been named from..." -- Sulfur 17:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC) : While I agree whole-heartedly with Sulfur, to me, the issue is not so much the explanation entirely, but the depth in which it is being explored. That's why we externally link to the possible origins. If someone really wants to know more, they know where to go. --Alan 18:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)